Second, North Shore argued that the court should grant its motion because the underlying complaint contains "factually 1'27] untrue" allegations. (North Shore Mot. Recons. 6-7, Adv. Pro. No. 08-03048, ECF No. 36). That argument ignores the numerous opportunities which North Shore had to oppose Carroll's factu

Second, North Shore argued that the court should grant its motion because the underlying complaint contains "factually r 27] untrue" allegations. (North Shore Mot. Recons. 6-7, Adv. Pro. No. 08-03048, ECF No. 36). That argument ignores the numerous opportunities which North Shore had to oppose Carroll's factu